A Picture is Worth a Thousand Words: Unnatural Features on Moon Surface

Your points are noted but please consider the following. One of the things that will be done before releasing the processing method will be to show it
consistently recovers same object from different pictures or viewing angles. As for stitching, this is a single 70mm Hasselblad image so no stitching
was done. Lastly, I don't think any structure or surface features of possible artificial origin will always be clearly visible. It just depends on the
age of the object and the rate of impact and regolith accumulation in the area.

Thanks for the PS. At least you are seeing the same object(s) that I did which is a good sign.

What pattern are you talking about? I can see no pattern in your image. If you mean the two white spots next to each other, they are most likely small
craters.

It would take a lot more to conclude that what one sees is an array of artificial-looking objects.

P.S. I think I see now what you're talking about. Giving the low resolution and your post-processing, they are undoubtedly image artifacts. In
addition to your circular things, I can see vertical lines and some other patterns. In fact, having looked at the rest of the image, I think it's the
result of stitching the panoramic image. I may be wrong. But my point is, if there were arrays of artificial objects on the Moon, they would look
clearer than the barely-visible patters which you bring out with image processing.

One of the things that will be done before releasing the processing method will be to show it consistently recovers same object from different
pictures or viewing angles.

There you go with the teasing again. Honestly, you're losing your audience. Let me give them a sneak preview of the sort of BS manipulations you do.
Remember, the original film had to be digitized or you wouldn't be able to play these games. Let me know if I'm getting warm:

Here's what you start with:

Then you zoom in so the pixellation creates nice sharp edges, then goose the contrast so that natural features begin to look unnatural. In this case,
the normal variations of color on the cliff face begin to look like letters:

The smudged high-resolution image AS15-P-9625 is perfectly adequate to make a positive evaluation of what is really on the surface at this location
but you may have to enhance the image to find out.

Your as bad as the OP , smudged is good to you, don't think so I can see whats in the picture rocks,dust and craters.

edit on 27-3-2013 by
wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

So wmd_2008, all you can see in the image is rock, dust and craters. Are you really that blind to what is there?

Do you not see where the airbrushing procedure has been applied on the high resolution image? I have enhanced a hi-res crop of this location and I can
assure you that the 'spacecraft-type' anomaly and the surrounding area contains a huge amount of detail. I can inform members that there is no
spacecraft there, just the shape of one. What is really on the surface at this location is enough to make your hair stand on end. The object detail is
quite remarkable.

Of course, it is possible that a ship landed there in ancient times and that is what originally formed the shape in the landscape, but since that time
it's obvious from the enhanced image I have produced that over time many changes have taken place.

In fact, there is so much detail showing it's understandable why the image was changed by the image handlers. The problem with this type of image
manipulation is that the truth of what is really on the moon, especially at this particular location, has been concealed from the general public and
this type of manipulative action goes against all the principles and interests of scientific discovery.

Wow, those are big words you're using. Care to present screenshots and point out where exactly there was airbrushing on high-res images? And what did
you see when you "enhanced" those parts? I only see nice crips terrain with rocks and craters and various topography features.

Have you ever considered that it might be just you imagination and a strong desire to believe? Alien presence on the Moon is an extraordinary claim
that requires extraordinary evidence.

The smudged high-resolution image AS15-P-9625 is perfectly adequate to make a positive evaluation of what is really on the surface at this location
but you may have to enhance the image to find out.

Your as bad as the OP , smudged is good to you, don't think so I can see whats in the picture rocks,dust and craters.

edit on 27-3-2013 by
wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

So wmd_2008, all you can see in the image is rock, dust and craters. Are you really that blind to what is there?

Do you not see where the airbrushing procedure has been applied on the high resolution image? I have enhanced a hi-res crop of this location and I can
assure you that the 'spacecraft-type' anomaly and the surrounding area contains a huge amount of detail. I can inform members that there is no
spacecraft there, just the shape of one. What is really on the surface at this location is enough to make your hair stand on end. The object detail is
quite remarkable.

Of course, it is possible that a ship landed there in ancient times and that is what originally formed the shape in the landscape, but since that time
it's obvious from the enhanced image I have produced that over time many changes have taken place.

In fact, there is so much detail showing it's understandable why the image was changed by the image handlers. The problem with this type of image
manipulation is that the truth of what is really on the moon, especially at this particular location, has been concealed from the general public and
this type of manipulative action goes against all the principles and interests of scientific discovery.

But it's not a depression, it has elevation (IE like a hill, with trenches on either side).

You'd be better off saying that something is buried there. That is something I can't say you are 100 percent wrong. I could say "Unlikely", but I
can say with 100 percent it's not a depression from something having landed there because it's not a "hole" but instead "sticks out".

For members who seem to doubt the sincerity in the text I posted above here is an animation of the 'spaceship' location seen in image AS15-P-9625. The
start image is a png crop from the high resolution version which then progresses into a png enhanced version of the same image. Take note of the
artistic theme of the architecture.

If you are interested in viewing a larger version of the enhanced image, click the Direct link below.

Originally posted by arianna
So wmd_2008, all you can see in the image is rock, dust and craters. Are you really that blind to what is there?

I know that I shouldn't be always talking about it, but you leave me no other choice.

Before accusing other people of being "blind to what is there" you should remember the test we made some time ago, right?

No ArMaP, you shouldn't still be keeping on about it. The 'test', as you call it, is not really relevant to the visual information contained in the
animation and the larger image at the Direct link

As I have said before, in many of the images there is 'hidden' detail that the eye cannot see. It is only when an image is enhanced that the obscure
detail becomes visible. This particular hi-res image was slightly different in that it had been airbrushed which created a 'fog' over important
surface detail. The object of the exercise was to remove the 'fog' and expose what, if anything, was on the surface underneath. I have to admit that I
was quite surprised at what the procedure revealed.

In view of what is showing in the animation I wonder how many members are still of the opinion that the 'spaceship' anomaly is a just a natural
formation and nothing more.

Originally posted by arianna
In view of what is showing in the animation I wonder how many members are still of the opinion that the 'spaceship' anomaly is a just a natural
formation and nothing more.

All I can see are natural formations. And I'm not sure what your animation is supposed to reveal exactly. I just see the contrast getting adjusted to
more extreme levels, but nothing strikes me as being artificial or unnatural in the image.

Originally posted by arianna
No ArMaP, you shouldn't still be keeping on about it. The 'test', as you call it, is not really relevant to the visual information contained in the
animation and the larger image at the Direct link

The test is relevant to any image you analyse, as it was done specifically for that, but I will stop talking about it.

As I have said before, in many of the images there is 'hidden' detail that the eye cannot see. It is only when an image is enhanced that the
obscure detail becomes visible.

No amount of enhancing (even real enhancing and not your version of enhancing, that only reduces the number of shades of grey in the images) can bring
back something that is not visible in any image, because if it's there it's visible. Yes, it may be just noticeable, but it's visible. Nobody has a
kind of "magic trick" to show "hidden detail".

This particular hi-res image was slightly different in that it had been airbrushed which created a 'fog' over important surface detail. The
object of the exercise was to remove the 'fog' and expose what, if anything, was on the surface underneath. I have to admit that I was quite
surprised at what the procedure revealed.

So wrong... If any "fog" was introduced through the use of the airbrush tool, there is no way of removing it, as the original pixels were replaced
or mixed with those added by the airbrush.

Do you know anything about digital images? You say so many wrong things that it makes me wonder if you even know how a digital image is made.

In view of what is showing in the animation I wonder how many members are still of the opinion that the 'spaceship' anomaly is a just a
natural formation and nothing more.

It looks like a natural formation to me, in all of the 35 images in which it appears.

Well ArMaP, I am very concerned for you. Considering your experience I am very surprised that you think the enhanced image only shows natural
formations. Are you possibly in a state of denial as to what is really on the lunar surface? With respect, may I suggest you put your purist ideas
about the technical details of imaging to one side and examine the enhanced image in minute detail. It is a lossless png version so you will know that
what you are seeing are not image artefacts.

From viewing the enhanced image I am convinced there are many similar places on the moon where structural formations are in evidence constructed to an
intelligent design. I wonder if the lunarians drink beer.

Considering your experience I am very surprised that you think the enhanced image only shows natural formations.

Well, maybe I see only natural formations because of my experience.

Are you possibly in a state of denial as to what is really on the lunar surface?

Not likely, I am never in a state of denial about anything.

With respect, may I suggest you put your purist ideas about the technical details of imaging to one side and examine the enhanced image in
minute detail.

I cannot put my "purist ideas about the technical details" because I am looking at a result of those technical details, doing that would be like
ignoring, while looking at a painting, the technique used to make it.

It is a lossless png version so you will know that what you are seeing are not image artefacts.

If the PNG is made from an image that was originally a JPEG then we will not see new artefacts, but we still be looking at the original artefacts.
What was the format of the original image you used?

From viewing the enhanced image I am convinced there are many similar places on the moon where structural formations are in evidence
constructed to an intelligent design.

Originally posted by arianna
For members who seem to doubt the sincerity in the text I posted above here is an animation of the 'spaceship' location seen in image AS15-P-9625.
The start image is a png crop from the high resolution version which then progresses into a png enhanced version of the same image. Take note of the
artistic theme of the architecture.

If you are interested in viewing a larger version of the enhanced image, click the Direct link below.

Let's work with this permalink:
Click where you can zoom in down to 0.5 meter resolution. Please post a
screenshot pointing out where you see the structures. On your enhanced image, I can only see craters and wrinkles in the terrain, exagerrated by
enhancement. Certainly no "architecture" as you call it.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.